Results of faecal sludge

analyses in Kampala, Uganda

Pictures, characteristics and qualitative observations for 76 samples

Schoebitz, L., Bischoff, F., Ddiba, D., Okello, F.,

Nakazibwe, R., Niwagaba, C.B., Lohri, C.R., Strande, L.

Sandec
Sanitation, Water and
Solid Waste for Development
 1. Introduction

As part of a collaborative research project conduc- the last section are samples where COD values were
ted by Eawag/Sandec and Makerere University, 180 not measured to due a lack of laboratory supplies. It
faecal sludge samples were collected and analyzed in is felt that they also include useful information as all
Kampala, Uganda from November 2013 to April 2014. other parameters are reported.
Presented in this report are quantitative and qualita-
tive results, alongside pictures of 76 samples taken For each of the samples, a research assistant follo-
in the laboratory and from the onsite location where wed a collection and transport truck to the customer
samples were collected. This information is expected location and observed the emptying operation. The
to be helpful to further understand the characteristics questionnaire information presented on page 4 was
and variability of different sources of faecal sludge, used to collect data on sludge origin from the crew
and also to develop qualitative knowledge regarding operating the truck and from the customer receiving
the visual appearance of faecal sludge with different emptying services. The truck was then followed back
characteristics. Some of this data has been used in to Bugolobi Treatment Plant where samples were
the preparation of a journal article (Schoebitz et al. collected from the truck during discharge. Samples
submitted). We are also sharing it here, because to were collected in a ratio of 1:2:1 during the initial
our knowledge it is the first time that such exten- discharge, middle discharge, and final discharge. An
sive knowledge of faecal sludge characteristics has example of the sampling and questionnaire procedu-
been made openly available in one document. By the re is presented in photo 1. They were then placed in
end of the sampling campaign, the research assistant a cooler on ice for transport to the laboratory and sto-
who processed all of these samples was able to re- red at 4°C until the following day for analyses. Quali-
liably predict the range of COD in the sample based tative assessments of foam, smell, viscosity and co-
on a qualitative visual analysis of foam, color and vis- lor were made based on observation from a ranking
cosity (but on odor). We are hoping that some of this of 1 (weak) to 3 (strong).
laboratory experience can be transferred by sharing
these results. Potentially this could lead to inexpen- All methods for quantitative analyses of chemical and
sive field methods for estimated characterization of physical characteristics are available on the Sandec
faecal sludge in the field or at treatment plant inlets website: www.sandec.ch/fsm_tools. For a more de-
in low-income countries. Viscosity and odor can be tailed analysis of the reported samples, please refer
qualitative predictors of COD and total solids with to: Schoebitz, L., Bischoff, F., Ddiba, D., Okello, F.,
long-term experience, and to a certain extent color. Niwagaba, C.B., Lohri, C.R., Strande, L. Working To-
wards Reliable Methods for Estimating Faecal Slud-
For samples where COD results were available, the ge Quantities and Characteristics on a City-Wide Sca-
results are presented by the following ranges of COD le. In preparation.
concentration: < 5000 mg/L COD; 5,001–10,000;
10,001–20,000; 20,001– 30,000; 30,001– 40,000;
40,001–50,000; > 50,001. In addition, presented in

2 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

Photo 1. Collecting questionnaire information from customer of emptying service

Photo 2. Samples being collected during discharge at Bugolobi Treatment Plant.

Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 3

 1. Introduction

Analyzed parameters Questionnaire information

Chemical Parameters Questions to driver

pH ··What is the volume of your truck?
COD (chemical oxygen demand) ··Who does the truck belong to?
CODsol (chemical oxygen demand of ··Is your truck completely full (following the emp-
soluble compounds) tying event)?
TN (total nitrogen) ··Was the customers onsite faecal sludge cont-
NH3-N (ammonia nitrogen) ainment fully emptied?
NO3-N (nitrate nitrogen) ··Did you add any water to the onsite faecal slud-
TP (total phosphorus) ge containment?
PO4-P (phosphate phosphorus) ··What is the source/origin of sludge (i.e. house-
hold, multiple household, institution/industry,
Physical parameters hotel/restaurant, school, public toilet, other)
TSS (total suspended solids) ··Was the faecal sludge containment a lined pit
VSS (volatile suspended solids) latrine, or Septic Tank?
TS (total solids)
VS (volatile solids) Questions to customers
··If a household, number of inhabitants?
Qualitative parameters ··Types of wastewater entering system (i.e. toi-
Foam let, bathing/washing, kitchen, other)?
Smell ··Does solid waste enter the faecal sludge
Viscosity containment, yes or no? If yes, what types
Color (e.g. hygenic products, food waste, other)?
··Age of faecal sludge containment (i.e. <5 years,
5-10 years, 10-20 years, exact age if known)?
··Do you have a water connection?
··Volume of containment?
··Have you ever had the faecal sludge contain-
ment emptied? If yes, when?
··Do you add bio-additives? If yes, how often?
··Is the faecal sludge containment watertight?
··If Septic Tank, how many chambers?

4 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.1 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): 5,000 mg/L

2. Tables

2.1 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): 5,000 mg/L

Sample 1

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.0
COD 742
CODsol 267
TN 113
NH4-N 84
NO3-N 0.6
TP 14
PO4-P 13

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 393
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 395
Percentage emptied 50 %
TS 833 Containment volume 20 m3
VS 826 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 15
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing, Washing
Foam 1 Water Connection Yes
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 1
Last desludging 4 months ago
Viscosity 1
Colour 1

Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 5

 2. Tables

Sample 2

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.0
COD 1,047
CODsol 186
TN 126
NH4-N 73
NO3-N 0.6
TP 16
PO4-P 14

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 965
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 541
Percentage emptied 33 %
TS 1,359
Containment volume 20 m3
VS 885 Truck full Yes
Origin Institutional/Commercial/
Qualitative parameters Industrial
(1: weak – 3: strong) Number of system users 70
Foam 1 Source of inputs Toilet
Water Connection Yes
Smell 1
Solid Waste No
Viscosity 2
Monthly
Last desludging
Colour 2

Sample 3

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.5
COD 1,388
CODsol 187
TN 87
NH4-N 50
NO3-N 0.5
TP 29
PO4-P 19

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 668
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 465
Percentage emptied 5%
TS 1,244
120 m3
Containment volume
VS 833 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 35
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing,
Foam 1 Washing, Kitchen
Water Connection Yes
Smell 1
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Viscosity 1 Last desludging Nov 12
Colour 1

6 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.1 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): 5,000 mg/L

Sample 4

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.6
COD 1,999
CODsol 321
TN 131
NH4-N 87
NO3-N 1
TP 23
PO4-P 11

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 1,450
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 739
Percentage emptied 57 %
TS 2,073
Containment volume 7 m3
VS 1,051 Truck full Yes
Origin Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 8
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing, Washing
Water Connection Yes
Foam 1
Solid Waste No
Smell 1
Last desludging No
Viscosity 1
Colour 1

Sample 5

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.6
COD 2,060
CODsol 159
TN 566
NH4-N 97
NO3-N 0.7
TP 67
PO4-P 25

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 2,494
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 1,367
Percentage emptied 44 %
TS 2,262
9 m3
Containment volume
VS 1,052 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 5
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing,
Foam 1 Washing, Kitchen
Water Connection Yes
Smell 1
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Viscosity 1 Last desludging 1 year ago
Colour 1

Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 7

 2. Tables

Sample 6

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.2
COD 2,192
CODsol 174
TN 148
NH4-N 74
NO3-N 0.6
TP 16
PO4-P 11

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 1,274
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 963
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 1,762
Containment volume 2 m3
VS 1,381 Truck full Yes
Origin Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 14
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing,
Washing, Kitchen
Foam 2
Water Connection Yes
Smell 2
Solid Waste Hygienic Products, Food
Viscosity 1 waste, Clothes, Plastic etc.
Colour 1 Last desludging No

Sample 7

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.9
COD 2,433
CODsol 1,580
TN 627
NH4-N —
NO3-N 6.4
TP 74
PO4-P 67

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS —
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS —
Percentage emptied 21 %
TS 3,023
24 m3
Containment volume
VS 1,563 Truck full Yes
Origin Institutional/Commercia/
Qualitative parameters Industrial
(1: weak – 3: strong) Number of system users —
Source of inputs Toilet
Foam —
Water Connection Yes
Smell —
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Viscosity — Last desludging Twice per week
Colour —

8 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.1 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): 5,000 mg/L

Sample 8

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.2
COD 2,695
CODsol 57
TN 190
NH4-N 90
NO3-N 0.6
TP 32
PO4-P 20

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 2,156
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 1,476
Percentage emptied 25 %
TS 1,916
Containment volume 40 m3
VS 1,117 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 45
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing, Washing
Water Connection Yes
Foam 1
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 1
Last desludging 5 months ago
Viscosity 1
Colour 2

Sample 9

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.8
COD 2,906
CODsol 702
TN 429
NH4-N 326
NO3-N 2.8
TP 97
PO4-P 70

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 2,139
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 1,281
Percentage emptied 50 %
TS —
8 m3
Containment volume
VS — Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 14
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam 1 Water Connection Yes
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 1
Last desludging First time
Viscosity 1
Colour 1

Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 9

 2. Tables

Sample 10

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.0
COD 3,694
CODsol 1,660
TN 1,293
NH4-N 1,010
NO3-N 6.0
TP 105
PO4-P 54

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 2,067
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 1,364
Percentage emptied 31 %
TS 5,789
Containment volume 12 m3
VS 2,649 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 35
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Water Connection No
Foam 2
Solid Waste Hygienic Products,
Smell 2
Food Waste
Viscosity 1 Last desludging 2 months ago
Colour 2

Sample 11

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.3
COD 3,933
CODsol 2,137
TN —
NH4-N —
NO3-N 16.9
TP 170
PO4-P 155

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS —
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS —
Percentage emptied —
TS 11,496
—
Containment volume
VS 2,637 Truck full No
Origin School
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 40
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam — Water Connection No
Solid Waste Domestic waste
Smell —
Last desludging May 2013
Viscosity —
Colour —

10 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.1 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): 5,000 mg/L

Sample 12

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.2
COD 4,602
CODsol 2,415
TN 1,713
NH4-N 978
NO3-N 6.8
TP 178
PO4-P 69

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 3,131
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 1,776
Percentage emptied 30 %
TS —
Containment volume 6 m3
VS — Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 12
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Water Connection No
Foam 1
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 1
Last desludging First time
Viscosity 1
Colour 2

Sample 13

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.8
COD 4,655
CODsol 1,023
TN 738
NH4-N 471
NO3-N 2.8
TP 101
PO4-P 80

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 3,350
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 2,754
Percentage emptied 23 %
TS —
20 m3
Containment volume
VS — Truck full Yes
Origin Public Toilet
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 1000
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam 1 Water Connection Yes
Solid Waste No
Smell 1
Last desludging Daily
Viscosity 1
Colour 2

Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 11

 2. Tables

12 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.2 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): 5,000–10,000 mg/L

2.2 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): 5,000–10,000 mg/L

Sample 14

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.5
COD 6,740
CODsol 1,489
TN 495
NH4-N 224
NO3-N 2
TP 65
PO4-P 140

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 4,692
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 3,392
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 0
Containment volume 10 m3
VS 0 Truck full Yes
Origin Restaurant/Hotel
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 250
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Water Connection Yes
Foam 1
Solid Waste No
Smell 1
Last desludging 1.5 months ago
Viscosity 1
Colour 3

Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 13

 2. Tables

Sample 15

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.51
COD 6,770
CODsol 3,324
TN 2,410
NH4-N 1,865
NO3-N 13.4
TP 202
PO4-P 78

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 6,513
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 3,464
Percentage emptied 46 %
TS —
Containment volume 8 m3
VS — Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 25
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Water Connection No
Foam 2
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 1
Last desludging No
Viscosity 1
Colour 2

Sample 16

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 6.9
COD 6,903
CODsol 568
TN 257
NH4-N 82
NO3-N 0.9
TP 39
PO4-P 18

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 4,508
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 3,123
Percentage emptied 50 %
TS 4,518
20 m3
Containment volume
VS 2,883 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 30
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam 1 Water Connection Yes
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 1
Last desludging 1 month ago
Viscosity 1
Colour 1

14 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.2 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): 5,000–10,000 mg/L

Sample 17

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.1
COD 8,829
CODsol 416
TN 426
NH4-N 151
NO3-N 1.2
TP 59
PO4-P 22

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 5,785
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 4,181
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 5,732
Containment volume 10 m3
VS 4,090 Truck full Yes
Origin Institutional/Commercia/
Qualitative parameters Industrial
(1: weak – 3: strong) Number of system users 170
Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing, Washing
Foam 1
Water Connection Yes
Smell 2
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Viscosity 2 Last desludging 9 months ago
Colour 3

Sample 18

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.2
COD 9,068
CODsol 589
TN 440
NH4-N 266
NO3-N 2.9
TP 60
PO4-P 18

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 6,423
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 4,722
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 6,796
7 m3
Containment volume
VS 5,052 Truck full Yes
Origin Institutional/Commercial/
Qualitative parameters Industrial
(1: weak – 3: strong) Number of system users 30
Foam 1 Source of inputs Toilet
Water Connection Yes
Smell 1
Solid Waste No
Viscosity 1
2 months ago
Last desludging
Colour 2

15 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 15

 2. Tables

Sample 19

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.3
COD 9,648
CODsol —
TN 1,968
NH4-N 1,613
NO3-N 9.5
TP 132
PO4-P 69

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 5,823
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 3,317
Percentage emptied 50 %
TS 9,831
Containment volume 8 m3
VS 4,304 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 18
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Water Connection No
Foam 1
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 2
Last desludging 8 months ago
Viscosity 1
Colour 2

16 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.3 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): 10,000–20,000 mg/L

2.3 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): 10,000–20,000 mg/L

Sample 20

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.2
COD 10,754
CODsol 4,054
TN 2,610
NH4-N 1,518
NO3-N 9.4
TP 212
PO4-P 55

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 9,175
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 6,199
Percentage emptied 40 %
TS 15,030
Containment volume 5 m3
VS 8,473 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 25
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing,
Washing, Kitchen
Foam 2
Water Connection No
Smell 2
Solid Waste Hygienic Products,
Viscosity 1 Food waste
Colour 2 Last desludging 3 months ago

Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 17

 2. Tables

Sample 21

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.0
COD 10,952
CODsol 1,907
TN 1,367
NH4-N 688
NO3-N 7.2
TP 168
PO4-P 32

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 9,440
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 6,143
Percentage emptied 50 %
TS 11,059
Containment volume 20 m3
VS 6,032 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 50
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Water Connection No
Foam 1
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 1
Last desludging 4 months ago
Viscosity 1
Colour 1

Sample 22

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.8
COD 11,322
CODsol
TN 1,303
NH4-N 486
NO3-N 4.7
TP 283
PO4-P 24

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 14,466
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 8,302
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 16,175
2 m3
Containment volume
VS 8,852 Truck full No
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 100
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam 2 Water Connection No
Solid Waste No
Smell 2
Last desludging 2.5 months ago
Viscosity 1
Colour 3

18 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.3 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): 10,000–20,000 mg/L

Sample 23
6

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.0
COD 11,948
CODsol 1,970
TN 512
NH4-N 261
NO3-N 4.0
TP 122
PO4-P 48

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 6,263
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 4,193
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 7,843
Containment volume 5 m3
VS 4,719 Truck full No
Origin Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 10
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing,
Washing, Kitchen
Foam 1
Water Connection Yes
Smell 1
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Viscosity 1 Last desludging 10 years
Colour 1

Sample 24

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.4
COD 12,663
CODsol 3,674
TN 1,350
NH4-N 1,110
NO3-N 20.4
TP 355
PO4-P 159

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 8,625
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 4,945
Percentage emptied 57 %
TS 20,675
7 m3
Containment volume
VS 6,435 Truck full Yes
Origin Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 5
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam 2 Water Connection No
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 2
Last desludging 1.5 years ago
Viscosity 2
Colour 2

19 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 19

 2. Tables

Sample 25

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.9
COD 12,877
CODsol 2,428
TN 990
NH4-N 661
NO3-N 6.2
TP 194
PO4-P 37

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 8,564
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 5,782
Percentage emptied —
TS 10,074
Containment volume —
VS 6,179 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 31
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Water Connection No
Foam 2
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 2
Last desludging 3 months ago
Viscosity 2
Colour 2

Sample 26

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.3
COD 13,393
CODsol 3,607
TN 3,060
NH4-N 1,731
NO3-N 10.9
TP 210
PO4-P 61

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 11,237
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 5,738
Percentage emptied 50 %
TS 14,977
8 m3
Containment volume
VS 7,087 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 10
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam 2 Water Connection No
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 2
Last desludging No
Viscosity 2
Colour 2

20 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.3 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): 10,000–20,000 mg/L

Sample 27

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.4
COD 14,033
CODsol 5,220
TN 444
NH4-N 1,330
NO3-N 17.1
TP 250
PO4-P 74

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 9,678
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 6,324
Percentage emptied 50 %
TS 17,577
Containment volume 8 m3
VS 7,902 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 14
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Water Connection No
Foam 3
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 3
Last desludging No
Viscosity 2
Colour 3

Sample 28

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.4
COD 16,747
CODsol 5,525
TN 3,910
NH4-N 2,133
NO3-N 16.8
TP 390
PO4-P 112

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 15,547
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 8,442
Percentage emptied 33 %
TS 20,548
12 m3
Containment volume
VS 9,927 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 45
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam 2 Water Connection No
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 2
Last desludging 1 year ago
Viscosity 2
Colour 2

21 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 21

 2. Tables

Sample 29

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.9
COD 18,313
CODsol 3,314
TN 2,543
NH4-N 1,260
NO3-N 7
TP 231
PO4-P 141

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 10,362
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 7,876
Percentage emptied 10 %
TS 11,436
Containment volume 50 m3
VS 6,952 Truck full Yes
Origin School
Qualitative parameters Number of system users —
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing,
Washing, Kitchen
Foam 2
Water Connection Yes
Smell 1
Solid Waste Hygienic Products, Food
Viscosity 2 waste, Clothes, Plastic etc
Colour 2 Last desludging Monthly

Sample 30

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.7
COD 18,468
CODsol 3,668
TN 6,347
NH4-N 1,924
NO3-N 13.1
TP 258
PO4-P 82

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 7,514
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 4,172
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 12,288
5 m3
Containment volume
VS 6,376 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 45
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam 2 Water Connection No
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 1
Last desludging 3 months ago
Viscosity 1
Colour 2

22 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.3 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): 10,000–20,000 mg/L

Sample 31

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.63
COD 18,655
CODsol 5,496
TN 895
NH4-N 270
NO3-N 2.9
TP 124
PO4-P 32

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 5,997
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 4,483
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 0
Containment volume 6 m3
VS 0 Truck full No
Origin Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 10
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Water Connection Yes
Foam 2
Solid Waste No
Smell 1
Last desludging No
Viscosity 1
Colour 2

23 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 23

 2. Tables

24 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.4 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): 20,000–30,000 mg/L

2.4 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): 20,000–30,000 mg/L

Sample 32

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.08
COD 20,918
CODsol 1,458
TN 1,322
NH4-N 682
NO3-N 6.1
TP 338
PO4-P 51

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 13,270
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 10,372
Percentage emptied 20 %
TS 0
Containment volume 23 m3
VS 0 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 60
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing, Washing
Water Connection No
Foam 2
Solid Waste No
Smell 1
Last desludging 7 months ago
Viscosity 2
Colour 2

Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 25

 2. Tables

Sample 33

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.1
COD 22,007
CODsol 1,410
TN 704
NH4-N 106
NO3-N 2.4
TP 140
PO4-P 10

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 29,643
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 12,504
Percentage emptied 50 %
TS 24,154
Containment volume 20 m3
VS 10,646 Truck full Yes
Origin Restaurant/Hotel
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 30
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing, Washing
Water Connection Yes
Foam 1
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 1
Last desludging 2 years ago
Viscosity 2
Colour 1

Sample 34

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.2
COD 22,563
CODsol 5,445
TN 3,970
NH4-N 2,407
NO3-N 19.6
TP 484
PO4-P 174

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 28,361
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 17,008
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 24,732
4 m3
Containment volume
VS 14,289 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 15
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam 3 Water Connection No
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 2
Last desludging 8 months ago
Viscosity 2
Colour 2

26 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.4 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): 20,000–30,000 mg/L

Sample 35

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.4
COD 22,660
CODsol —
TN 4,205
NH4-N 2,888
NO3-N 16.9
TP 777
PO4-P 236

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 23,419
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 14,788
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 23,858
Containment volume 8 m3
VS 13,371 Truck full No
Origin Institutional/Commercial/
Qualitative parameters Industrial
(1: weak – 3: strong) Number of system users 80
Source of inputs Toilet
Foam 1
Water Connection No
Smell 2
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Viscosity 2 Last desludging 5 months ago
Colour 2

Sample 36

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.53
COD 23,922
CODsol 3,976
TN 3,850
NH4-N 2,120
NO3-N 14.3
TP 301
PO4-P 100

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 20,298
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 12,817
Percentage emptied 93 %
TS 0
4 m3
Containment volume
VS 0 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 27
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam 2 Water Connection No
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 2
Last desludging 1 year 4 months ago
Viscosity 2
Colour 2

27 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 27

 2. Tables

Sample 37

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.29
COD 25,852
CODsol 522
TN 1,273
NH4-N 182
NO3-N 2.5
TP 108
PO4-P 20

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 19,508
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 4,750
Percentage emptied 13 %
TS 0
Containment volume 80 m3
VS 0 Truck full Yes
Origin School
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 450
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing, Washing
Water Connection Yes
Foam 1
Solid Waste No
Smell 1
Last desludging 2 weeks ago
Viscosity 2
Colour 2

Sample 38

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.4
COD 26,453
CODsol 5,227
TN 2,370
NH4-N 2,160
NO3-N 25.7
TP 768
PO4-P 124

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 22,775
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 13,964
Percentage emptied 54 %
TS 30,449
12 m3
Containment volume
VS 19,058 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 20
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam 3 Water Connection No
Solid Waste Hygienic Products,
Smell 2
Food waste
Viscosity 3
Last desludging 10 months ago
Colour 2

28 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.4 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): 20,000–30,000 mg/L

Sample 39

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.1
COD 26,992
CODsol 4,270
TN 1,817
NH4-N 897
NO3-N 6.8
TP 234
PO4-P 44

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 19,529
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 12,483
Percentage emptied 50 %
TS 22,959
Containment volume 6 m3
VS 13,417 Truck full Yes
Origin Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 5
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing, Washing
Water Connection Yes
Foam 3
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 1
Last desludging 5 years ago
Viscosity 1
Colour 3

Sample 40

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.8
COD 27,533
CODsol 1,946
TN 1,799
NH4-N 685
NO3-N 7.1
TP 430
PO4-P 113

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 21,713
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 14,814
Percentage emptied 65 %
TS 23,006
10 m3
Containment volume
VS 16,827 Truck full Yes
Origin Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 7
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam 2 Water Connection No
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 1
Last desludging 1.5 years ago
Viscosity 2
Colour 3

29 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 29

 2. Tables

Sample 41

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.5
COD 28,020
CODsol 6,227
TN 3,620
NH4-N 1,579
NO3-N 21
TP 681
PO4-P 125

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 23,858
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 14,473
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 25,728
Containment volume 3 m3
VS 15,655 Truck full No
Origin Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 10
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Water Connection No
Foam 3
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 1
Last desludging 1 year ago
Viscosity 2
Colour 2

30 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.5 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): 30,000–40,000 mg/L

2.5 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): 30,000–40,000 mg/L

Sample 42

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.4
COD 35,197
CODsol 5,041
TN 4,880
NH4-N 1,345
NO3-N 18.7
TP 1,070
PO4-P 71

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 27,150
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 11,940
Percentage emptied 25 %
TS 28,159
Containment volume 12 m3
VS 16,716 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 30
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Water Connection No
Foam 3
Solid Waste Hygienic Products,
Smell 2
Food waste, Clothes,
Viscosity 2 Plastic etc.
Colour 2 Last desludging 6 months ago

Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 31

 2. Tables

Sample 43

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.2
COD 36,597
CODsol 5,534
TN 2,887
NH4-N 1,297
NO3-N 10.7
TP 582
PO4-P 65

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 35,949
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 22,811
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 24,655
Containment volume 2 m3
VS 15,845 Truck full No
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 20
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Water Connection No
Foam 1
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 2
Last desludging 1.5 months ago
Viscosity 2
Colour 1

Sample 44

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.3
COD 38,450
CODsol 4,360
TN 3,657
NH4-N 704
NO3-N 11
TP 940
PO4-P 61

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 29,192
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 20,132
Percentage emptied 57 %
TS 0
7 m3
Containment volume
VS 0 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 70
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam 3 Water Connection No
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 3
Last desludging 8 months ago
Viscosity 3
Colour 2

32 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.6 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): 40,000–50,000 mg/L

2.6 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): 40,000–50,000 mg/L

Sample 45

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.8
COD 41,300
CODsol 3,720
TN 2,460
NH4-N 783
NO3-N 41.5
TP 394
PO4-P 66

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 29,761
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 22,004
Percentage emptied 65 %
TS 32,427
Containment volume 10 m3
VS 25,246 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 20
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Water Connection No
Foam 3
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 2
Last desludging No
Viscosity 3
Colour 2

Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 33

 2. Tables

Sample 46

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.3
COD 43,020
CODsol 9,672
TN 2,860
NH4-N 1,397
NO3-N 25.1
TP 662
PO4-P 75

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 25,867
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 20,446
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 31,771
Containment volume 5 m3
VS 22,507 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 30
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Water Connection Yes
Foam 3
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 3
Last desludging 4 months ago
Viscosity 3
Colour 3

Sample 47

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.7
COD 43,322
CODsol 2,158
TN 2,807
NH4-N 764
NO3-N 9
TP 474
PO4-P 92

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 37,064
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 27,326
Percentage emptied 32 %
TS 38,088
13 m3
Containment volume
VS 27,826 Truck full Yes
Origin Institutional/Commercial/
Qualitative parameters Industrial
(1: weak – 3: strong) Number of system users 75
Foam 3 Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing, Washing
Water Connection Yes
Smell 2
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Viscosity 3
1 year ago
Last desludging
Colour 3

34 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.7 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): >50,000 mg/L

2.7 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): >50,000 mg/L

Sample 48

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.5
COD 52,013
CODsol 6,093
TN 1,767
NH4-N 1,190
NO3-N 11.9
TP 238
PO4-P 83

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 24,034
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 16,501
Percentage emptied —
TS 43,566
Containment volume —
VS 31,556 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 9
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing, Washing
Water Connection Yes
Foam 3
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 1
Last desludging 3 years ago
Viscosity 3
Colour 1

Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 35

 2. Tables

Sample 49

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.4
COD 52,167
CODsol 8,327
TN 3,420
NH4-N 1,257
NO3-N 21.1
TP 663
PO4-P 153

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 45,469
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 30,487
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 47,509
Containment volume 2 m3
VS 32,194 Truck full No
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 18
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Water Connection No
Foam 2
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 2
Last desludging No
Viscosity 2
Colour 3

Sample 50

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.3
COD 63,050
CODsol 6,084
TN 3,410
NH4-N 1,154
NO3-N 23.5
TP 2,040
PO4-P 170

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 62,041
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 36,279
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 70,092
3 m3
Containment volume
VS 42,567 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 5
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam 3 Water Connection No
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 1
Last desludging 5 years ago
Viscosity 3
Colour 1

36 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.7 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): >50,000 mg/L

Sample 51

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.2
COD 66,690
CODsol 4,794
TN 1,913
NH4-N 243
NO3-N 9.2
TP 262
PO4-P 21

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 64,633
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 44,994
Percentage emptied 17 %
TS 66,078
Containment volume 60 m3
VS 37,231 Truck full Yes
Origin Institutional/Commercial/
Qualitative parameters Industrial
(1: weak – 3: strong) Number of system users 7000
Foam 2 Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing, Washing
Water Connection Yes
Smell 1
Solid Waste No
Viscosity 3
Last desludging 3 years ago
Colour 3

Sample 52

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 5.7 Containment system Septic Tank

COD 67,617 Percentage emptied 50 %
CODsol 11,207 Containment volume 8 m3
TN 983 Truck full Yes
Origin Institutional/Commercial/
NH4-N 330
Industrial
NO3-N 270.4
Number of system users —
TP 106 Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing, Washing
PO4-P 39 Water Connection Yes
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Physical parameters (mg/L)
Last desludging 3 weeks ago
TSS 60,021
VSS 46,812
TS 52,732
VS 44,044

Qualitative parameters
(1: weak – 3: strong)

Foam 3
Smell 2
Viscosity 3
Colour 3

Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 37

 2. Tables

Sample 53

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.3
COD 71,283
CODsol 5,498
TN 5,507
NH4-N 1,538
NO3-N 26.7
TP 1,078
PO4-P 272

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 4,768
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 3,301
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 69,617
Containment volume 2 m3
VS 41,713 Truck full No
Origin Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 7
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Water Connection No
Foam 2
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 1
Last desludging 8 months ago
Viscosity 3
Colour 2

Sample 54

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.1
COD 91,850
CODsol 8,358
TN 2,633
NH4-N 331
NO3-N 491.7
TP —
PO4-P 274

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 0
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 0
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 121,601
3 m3
Containment volume
VS 54,919 Truck full Yes
Origin Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 2
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam — Water Connection Yes
Solid Waste No
Smell —
Last desludging Last 2006
Viscosity —
Colour —

38 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.7 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): >50,000 mg/L

Sample 55

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.51
COD 95,947
CODsol 1,408
TN 2,235
NH4-N 111
NO3-N 4.2
TP 1,730
PO4-P 23

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 12,635
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 9,585
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 0
Containment volume 1 m3
VS 0 Truck full No
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 12
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Water Connection No
Foam 3
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 1
Last desludging 1.5 years ago
Viscosity 3
Colour 3

Sample 56

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.3
COD 100,017
CODsol 6,505
TN 5,000
NH4-N 1,310
NO3-N 20.7
TP 825
PO4-P 75

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 59,289
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 41,900
Percentage emptied 67 %
TS 60,561
9 m3
Containment volume
VS 41,064 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 20
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam 2 Water Connection No
Solid Waste Hygienic Products,
Smell 2
Food waste
Viscosity 2 Last desludging 10 months ago
Colour 2

Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 39

 2. Tables

40 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.8 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): No information

2.8 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): No information

Sample 57

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.7
COD —
CODsol —
TN 553
NH4-N 420
NO3-N 1.8
TP 75
PO4-P 53

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 2,163
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 1,481
Percentage emptied 49 %
TS 3,058
Containment volume 21 m3
VS 1,675 Truck full Yes
Origin School
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 500
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Water Connection Yes
Foam 1
Solid Waste No
Smell 1
Last desludging 3 months ago
Viscosity 1
Colour 2

Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 41

 2. Tables

Sample 58

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.7
COD —
CODsol —
TN 553
NH4-N 420
NO3-N 1.8
TP 75
PO4-P 53

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 2,163
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 1,481
Percentage emptied 49 %
TS 3,058
Containment volume 21 m3
VS 1,675 Truck full Yes
Origin School
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 500
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Water Connection Yes
Foam 1
Solid Waste No
Smell 1
Last desludging 3 months ago
Viscosity 1
Colour 2

Sample 59

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.2
COD —
CODsol —
TN 4,753
NH4-N 1,771
NO3-N 53.7
TP 2,040
PO4-P 367

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 120,863
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 63,997
Percentage emptied 83 %
TS 122,581
Containment volume 4 m3
VS 60,631 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 10
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam 1 Water Connection No
Solid Waste Hygienic Products,
Smell 2
Food waste
Viscosity 3 First time
Last desludging
Colour 3

42 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.8 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): No information

Sample 60

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.0
COD —
CODsol —
TN 835
NH4-N 593
NO3-N 6.5
TP 107
PO4-P 49

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 5,733
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 3,849
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 7,156
Containment volume 4 m3
VS 4,262 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 7
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing, Washing
Foam 2 Water Connection No
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 3
Last desludging 2 years ago
Viscosity —
Colour 2

Sample 61

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 6.9
COD —
CODsol —
TN 51
NH4-N 35
NO3-N 0.4
TP 6
PO4-P 4

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 108
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 136
Percentage emptied 33 %
TS 493
30 m3
Containment volume
VS 381 Truck full Yes
Origin Institutional/Commercial/
Qualitative parameters Industrial
(1: weak – 3: strong) Number of system users 150
Foam 1 Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing, Washing
Water Connection Yes
Smell 1
Solid Waste No
Viscosity —
1 week ago
Last desludging
Colour 1

Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 43

 2. Tables

Sample 62

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.4
COD —
CODsol —
TN 3,705
NH4-N 2,607
NO3-N 37.2
TP 655
PO4-P 85

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 35,692
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 23,481
Percentage emptied —
TS 39,646
Containment volume —
VS 25,104 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 10
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Water Connection No
Foam 2
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 3
Last desludging 1 year ago
Viscosity —
Colour 2

Sample 63

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.1
COD —
CODsol —
TN 593
NH4-N 190
NO3-N 1.8
TP 174
PO4-P 22

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 29,221
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 17,456
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 31,571
5 m3
Containment volume
VS 18,851 Truck full No
Origin Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 15
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing, Washing
Foam 1 Water Connection Yes
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 1
Last desludging 5 years ago
Viscosity —
Colour 3

44 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.8 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): No information

Sample 64

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 6.8
COD —
CODsol —
TN 384
NH4-N 66
NO3-N 1
TP 47
PO4-P 17

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 7,619
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 5,858
Percentage emptied 50 %
TS 8,635
Containment volume 9 m3
VS 6,713 Truck full Yes
Origin Institutional/Commercial/
Qualitative parameters Industrial
(1: weak – 3: strong) Number of system users 35
Foam 1 Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing, Washing
Water Connection Yes
Smell 2
Solid Waste No
Viscosity —
Last desludging 5 months ago
Colour 2

Sample 65

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.4
COD —
CODsol —
TN 3,493
NH4-N 2,620
NO3-N 15.9
TP 130
PO4-P 119

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 3,139
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 1,613
Percentage emptied 33 %
TS 11,110
20 m3
Containment volume
VS 3,811 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 40
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam 1 Water Connection No
Solid Waste Hygienic Products,
Smell 2
Food waste
Viscosity —
Last desludging 2 months ago
Colour 2

Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 45

 2. Tables

Sample 66

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.2
COD —
CODsol —
TN 2,600
NH4-N 575
NO3-N 20.2
TP 357
PO4-P 74

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 50,217
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 35,535
Percentage emptied 36 %
TS 53,145
Containment volume 25 m3
VS 43,394 Truck full Yes
Origin Public Toilet
Qualitative parameters Number of system users —
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Water Connection Yes
Foam 2
Solid Waste Hygienic Products,
Smell 2
Food waste
Viscosity — Last desludging every 2 weeks
Colour 3

Sample 67

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.0
COD —
CODsol —
TN 3,693
NH4-N 2,153
NO3-N 9.8
TP 232
PO4-P 133

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 8,357
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 5,060
Percentage emptied 56 %
TS 18,172
8 m3
Containment volume
VS 8,589 Truck full Yes
Origin School
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 600
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam 2 Water Connection Yes
Solid Waste No
Smell 3
Last desludging 1 month ago
Viscosity —
Colour 2

46 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.8 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): No information

Sample 68

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.1
COD —
CODsol —
TN 1,940
NH4-N 1,250
NO3-N 8.1
TP 209
PO4-P 71

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 11,861
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 7,947
Percentage emptied 15 %
TS 13,995
Containment volume 30 m3
VS 8,649 Truck full —
Origin Public Toilet
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 500
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam 1 Water Connection No
Solid Waste No
Smell 3
Last desludging —
Viscosity —
Colour 3

Sample 69

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.0
COD —
CODsol —
TN 1,570
NH4-N 897
NO3-N 9.4
TP 263
PO4-P 72

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 10,101
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 7,209
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 14,088
5 m3
Containment volume
VS 8,951 Truck full No
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 25
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam 2 Water Connection No
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 1
Last desludging 2.5 months ago
Viscosity —
Colour 2

Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 47

 2. Tables

Sample 70

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.4
COD —
CODsol ­—
TN 2,103
NH4-N 494
NO3-N 5.5
TP 200
PO4-P 58

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 20,136
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 15,867
Percentage emptied 30 %
TS 23,515
Containment volume 15 m3
VS 17,992 Truck full Yes
Origin School
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 1000
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing, Washing
Water Connection Yes
Foam 3
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 1
Last desludging 1 month ago
Viscosity —
Colour 3

Sample 71

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.4
COD —
CODsol —
TN 2,000
NH4-N 2,160
NO3-N 18.7
TP 105
PO4-P 186

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 3,290
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 1,831
Percentage emptied 50 %
TS 7,919
13 m3
Containment volume
VS 2,660 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 20
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam 1 Water Connection No
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 2
Last desludging 3 months ago
Viscosity —
Colour 3

48 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.8 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): No information

Sample 72

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.3
COD —
CODsol —
TN 2,063
NH4-N 1,695
NO3-N 12.2
TP 96
PO4-P 104

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 2,341
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 1,400
Percentage emptied 65 %
TS 8,291
Containment volume 10 m3
VS 2,699 Truck full Yes
Origin Institutional/Commercial/
Qualitative parameters Industrial
(1: weak – 3: strong) Number of system users —
Foam 1 Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing, Washing
Water Connection No
Smell 1
Solid Waste Hygienic Products,
Viscosity — Food waste
Colour 2 Last desludging 10 months ago

Sample 73

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7
COD —
CODsol —
TN 3,360
NH4-N 386
NO3-N 5.8
TP 570
PO4-P 60

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 68,234
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 51,730
Percentage emptied 33 %
TS 60,793
12 m3
Containment volume
VS 43,520 Truck full Yes
Origin School
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 280
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam 1 Water Connection No
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 1
Last desludging 1 year
Viscosity —
Colour 3

Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 49

 2. Tables

Sample 74

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.3
COD —
CODsol —
TN 517
NH4-N 160
NO3-N 2.8
TP 137
PO4-P 42

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 28,289
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 13,656
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 21,122
Containment volume 4 m3
VS 11,288 Truck full Yes
Origin Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 8
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing,
Washing, Kitchen
Foam 2
Water Connection Yes
Smell 2
Solid Waste No
Viscosity — Last desludging 2 years ago
Colour 2

Sample 75

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.4
COD —
CODsol —
TN 286
NH4-N —
NO3-N 1.3
TP 33
PO4-P 38

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 9,823
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 7,446
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 2,447
5 m3
Containment volume
VS 1,690 Truck full No
Origin Institutional/Commerci-
Qualitative parameters al/Industrial
(1: weak – 3: strong) Number of system users 40
Foam 1 Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing, Washing
Water Connection Yes
Smell 1
Solid Waste No
Viscosity —
2 weeks ago
Last desludging
Colour 2

50 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.8 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): No information

Sample 76

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8
COD —
CODsol —
TN 1,673
NH4-N 1,020
NO3-N 5.7
TP 443
PO4-P 60

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 7,421
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 4,900
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 10,225
Containment volume 3 m3
VS 5,875 Truck full No
Origin Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 6
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet
Foam 1 Water Connection Yes
Solid Waste No
Smell 2
Last desludging 3 months ago
Viscosity —
Colour 2

Sample 77

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.3
COD —
CODsol —
TN 605
NH4-N 346
NO3-N 1.2
TP 102
PO4-P 26

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 1,550
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 1,267
Percentage emptied 77 %
TS 8,819
4 m3
Containment volume
VS 6,452 Truck full Yes
Origin School
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 25
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing, Washing
Foam 1 Water Connection Yes
Solid Waste No
Smell 2
Last desludging 1 year
Viscosity —
Colour 3

Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 51

 2. Tables

Sample 81

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 7.9
COD —
CODsol —
TN 609
NH4-N 445
NO3-N 2.5
TP 72
PO4-P 54

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 1,602
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 1,164
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 3,246
4 m3
Containment volume
VS 1,687 Truck full Yes
Origin Public Toilet
Qualitative parameters Number of system users —
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing, Washing
Foam 1 Water Connection Yes
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 2
Last desludging four times daily
Viscosity —
Colour 2

Sample 82

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.3
COD —
CODsol —
TN 754
NH4-N 545
NO3-N 2.7
TP 72
PO4-P 33

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 1,619
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 919
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 3,433
Containment volume 5 m3
VS 1,602 Truck full Yes
Origin Public Toilet
Qualitative parameters Number of system users —
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing, Washing
Water Connection Yes
Foam 1
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 2
Last desludging 3–4 times daily
Viscosity —
Colour 1

52 Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda

 2.1 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): 5,000–10,000 mg/L

Sample 6

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.0
COD —
CODsol —
TN 825
NH4-N 797
NO3-N 4.7
TP 76
PO4-P 66

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 1,270
Containment system Latrine Pit
VSS 570
Percentage emptied 40 %
TS 3,515
25 m3
Containment volume
VS 1,130 Truck full Yes
Origin Multiple Household
Qualitative parameters Number of system users 40
(1: weak – 3: strong) Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing, Washing
Foam 1 Water Connection No
Solid Waste Hygienic Products
Smell 1
Last desludging 6 months ago
Viscosity —
Colour 2

Sample 84

Laboratory sample Chemical parameters (mg/L) System information

pH 8.0
COD —
CODsol —
TN 1,047
NH4-N 590
NO3-N 3.1
TP 246
PO4-P 30

Physical parameters (mg/L)

TSS 14,749
Containment system Septic Tank
VSS 9,065
Percentage emptied 100 %
TS 14,886
Containment volume 3 m3
VS 8,790 Truck full No
Origin Institutional/Commercial/
Qualitative parameters Industrial
(1: weak – 3: strong) Number of system users —
Source of inputs Toilet, Bathing,
Foam 1
Washing, Kitchen
Smell 2 Yes
Water Connection
Viscosity — Solid Waste No
Colour 2 Last desludging Every 2 weeks

Results of faecal sludge analyses Kampala, Uganda 53

 Sandec
Sanitation, Water and
Solild Waste for Development

© Eawag, April 2016 Graphic Design:

Swiss Federal Institute of Alessandro Holler & Sandro
Aquatic Science and Technolo- Lochau, www.quaint.ch, Zurich
gy, Sandec: Department
Water and Sanitation in De- Text Editing:
veloping Countries, Paul Donahue
Dübendorf, Switzerland,
www.sandec.ch All Photos:
Eawag (Sandec)
A free PDF copy of this publica-
tion can be downloaded from
www.sandec.ch/fsm_tools

Bibliographic Reference:
Schoebitz, L., Bischoff, F.,
Ddiba, D., Okello, F., Naka-
zibwe, R., Niwagaba, C.B.,
Lohri, C.R., Strande, L. Results
of faecal sludge analyses in
Kampala, Uganda: Pictures,
characteristics and qualitative
observations for 76 samples.
Eawag: Swiss Federal Institute
of Aquatic Science and Techno-
logy. Dübendorf, Switzerland.
April 2016.

Eawag Überlandstrasse 133 +41 (0)44 823 52 86

Department Sandec P. O. Box 611 [email protected]
8600 Dübendorf www.eawag.ch
Switzerland www.sandec.ch